Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have wondered if UFO sightings, mutilations and Bigfoot are all somehow related to each other. It is quite a mystery, don't know if we'll ever know but I wish we could know more.
The one repeating commonality among all those is the people reporting them.
Cows bloat if they eat too much clover. It can kill a cow in a very short period of time, you can look it up. When a cow dies of the bloat the internal gases can cause the skin to split resembling a surgical cut - that has been documented. That same internal gas pressure will force out the soft tissue (eyes, tongue, anus, sexual organs). Insects and scavengers can then get a quick meal.
Sure, there can be other factors, like human involvement. But people that like to point to the unknown have no way to limit themselves to just the unknown, they love to lump everything together to prove their point. Like everything else paranormal the vast majority of these 'mutilations' point to natural causes. The believers would have more credibility if they could restrict themselves to the truly unknown - but that will never happen.
Why dont you contact the investigators in some of these mutilation cases...Im sure they would love to get these incidents solved!
Why dont you contact the investigators in some of these mutilation cases...Im sure they would love to get these incidents solved!
Its possible they may even compensate you.
Why don't you just supply evidence and not fictional stories? Even contacting the investigators only leads us to more stories. You really do not have that many sightings each year and as I said previously, there are probably more stories of pink elephants than BF.
By this time you are well aware of how to change my mind. Prove what you are claiming!
Why don't you just supply evidence and not fictional stories? Even contacting the investigators only leads us to more stories. You really do not have that many sightings each year and as I said previously, there are probably more stories of pink elephants than BF.
By this time you are well aware of how to change my mind. Prove what you are claiming!
Yes, you want solid evidence...and Ive provided it, in the form of EXPERTS/PROFESSIONALS admitting they are baffled. What more do you want? Im not an investigator, or a vet, I do not have access to cattle...so not much more I can provide you.
Its not like Im giving you 'questionable sources' either, the people who are baffled by cattle mutilations, are REAL experts and professionals in their fields.
David Paulides talked about this in his latest video. It starts about 5:00 in. Not the whole video.
I don't like Paulides, he is just another that talks too much and shows little. I do agree that the first picture he shows is slightly harder to explain as natural, but the second picture he shows is classic of a natural decomposition process caused by the bloating I mentioned before. In this link (https://www.history.com/news/cattle-...ker-ranch-ufos) it states:
"In Washington County, Arkansas in 1979, the sheriff’s department conducted an experiment: It placed a dead cow in a field for 48 hours and found it looked a lot like the ostensibly mutilated ones. Bacterial bloating had caused its skin to tear in an incision-like manner similar to what had been described in some ranchers’ reports. Maggots and blowflies, meanwhile, had cleaned out the animal’s organs."
So for all of these people that talk about this subject, where is their testing to disprove what others have already proven?
I don't like Paulides, he is just another that talks too much and shows little. I do agree that the first picture he shows is slightly harder to explain as natural, but the second picture he shows is classic of a natural decomposition process caused by the bloating I mentioned before. In this link (https://www.history.com/news/cattle-...ker-ranch-ufos) it states:
"In Washington County, Arkansas in 1979, the sheriff’s department conducted an experiment: It placed a dead cow in a field for 48 hours and found it looked a lot like the ostensibly mutilated ones. Bacterial bloating had caused its skin to tear in an incision-like manner similar to what had been described in some ranchers’ reports. Maggots and blowflies, meanwhile, had cleaned out the animal’s organs."
So for all of these people that talk about this subject, where is their testing to disprove what others have already proven?
Ive asked you this before, but I dont think you ever gave an answer...if these cattle carcasses are just what normally happens to a carcass out in the field...how did they ever 'differentiate' between a normal cow death and a 'cattle mutilation'?
Obviously, there would be no articles or reports on 'normal cattle deaths in the field'...my point is, they are differentiating between a normal death, and something not so normal...this means, they had to have a reason to make that determination, to call it a 'cattle mutilation' instead of just a run of the mill death.
Ive asked you this before, but I dont think you ever gave an answer...if these cattle carcasses are just what normally happens to a carcass out in the field...how did they ever 'differentiate' between a normal cow death and a 'cattle mutilation'?
Obviously, there would be no articles or reports on 'normal cattle deaths in the field'...my point is, they are differentiating between a normal death, and something not so normal...this means, they had to have a reason to make that determination, to call it a 'cattle mutilation' instead of just a run of the mill death.
We tried to solve this by finding out more about the insurance payouts. If there is a chance a rancher will get insurance money for a dead cow, then it might be described as 'mutilation'. But I do not believe that we ever found out the answer to that question.
Also never forget Webster's definition of 'mutilation': "an act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal". That basically means that anytime you have a steak or hamburger you assisted the mutilator! It is a terrible word for our media to use because they abuse that word, they love sensationalism to snag new readers and 'inquiring minds'.
If people spent as much time watching what happens to a dead cow over time as it decomposes as they do talking about 'mutilations' maybe they would know what happens! But not too many people want to waste their next meal!
We tried to solve this by finding out more about the insurance payouts. If there is a chance a rancher will get insurance money for a dead cow, then it might be described as 'mutilation'. But I do not believe that we ever found out the answer to that question.
Also never forget Webster's definition of 'mutilation': "an act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal". That basically means that anytime you have a steak or hamburger you assisted the mutilator! It is a terrible word for our media to use because they abuse that word, they love sensationalism to snag new readers and 'inquiring minds'.
If people spent as much time watching what happens to a dead cow over time as it decomposes as they do talking about 'mutilations' maybe they would know what happens! But not too many people want to waste their next meal!
This article mentions that it was a financial loss to the farm owner, (as many other cattle mutilation articles do as well)...the takeaway is insurance not covering it.
This is common sense anyway, no matter what the policy covers, underwriters must know the cause of death/damage, before they decide to pay out or not, if the cause is 'unknown', they cannot determine whether its covered or not, and sadly, policies favor the insurance company.
Same thing happens when people die with insurance policies, the insurance company sometimes goes to great lengths to prove or disprove cause of death, and cannot make that decision until they have a cause of death.
This article mentions that it was a financial loss to the farm owner, (as many other cattle mutilation articles do as well)...the takeaway is insurance not covering it.
This is common sense anyway, no matter what the policy covers, underwriters must know the cause of death/damage, before they decide to pay out or not, if the cause is 'unknown', they cannot determine whether its covered or not, and sadly, policies favor the insurance company.
Same thing happens when people die with insurance policies, the insurance company sometimes goes to great lengths to prove or disprove cause of death, and cannot make that decision until they have a cause of death.
It is only natural for underwriters to question, they do that all the time.
What we don't know is any of the companies pay out anything on 'unnatural causes' of death. If any rancher receives any reimbursement that would be cause for others to try. Nothing ventured, nothing gained thinking. But we really do not have access to any of that information so it would be impossible to decide if that was an important factor in why they claim 'cattle mutilations?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
